Laserfiche WebLink
City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project <br />CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations <br /> <br /> <br />FirstCarbon Solutions 47 <br />Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/FOF/21480016 Pleasanton Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project FOF.docx <br />Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative <br />Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative (Alternative 2), the project site would be <br />redeveloped with uses allowed by-right for the existing zoning districts on each parcel. This <br />alternative would not include annexation of the project site into the City. As such, permitted <br />development would be subject to the County’s zoning code. On the project site, each of the five <br />existing parcels would develop one single-family dwelling unit consistent with existing zoning. Since <br />APN 941-2600-002-6 is over 25 acres in size, the development of a secondary dwelling unit would be <br />constructed on that parcel under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would result in the <br />development of five total dwelling units and one secondary dwelling unit. No demolishment of the <br />existing Lester Family residences and dedication of land to the EBRPD, parking improvements, or <br />improvements to the Oak Hills Congregational Church access would occur. The smaller footprint <br />would reduce the extent of grading and development, potentially resulting in slightly lower <br />environmental impacts. <br />As such, this alternative would result in lesser impacts with respect to aesthetics, light, and glare; air <br />quality; biological resources; cultural resources and tribal cultural resources; energy; geology, soils, <br />and seismicity; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; noise; population and <br />housing; public services; recreation; utilities and service systems; and wildfire. <br />This alternative would result in similar impacts with respect to agriculture and forestry resources; <br />hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; mineral resources; and transportation. <br />Because this alternative would exist largely within the same boundaries as the existing project site, <br />this alternative would require the same mitigation measures as the proposed project, with the <br />exception of MM HAZ-1, which would not be required for this alternative because the existing <br />homes would not be demolished. No improvements to Dublin Canyon Road, including the traffic <br />signal and turn lane, would be constructed. <br />Therefore, although this alternative would reduce some environmental impacts, due to the <br />decreased number of residences it would only partially meet the project’s objectives related to: <br />1. Encouraging redevelopment of underused sites containing available infrastructure as <br />identified in the Pleasanton General Plan Housing Element. <br />2. Providing public access, including a public parking/staging area and a trail connection, to <br />Pleasanton Ridge. <br />3. Preserving the open space character at the edges of the City, in accordance with the City of <br />Pleasanton General Plan Community Character Element. <br />4. Improving Dublin Canyon Road to increase access and safety by constructing roadways, <br />sidewalks, and bike lanes. <br /> <br />Additionally, under Alternative 2, the western portion of the project site would not be dedicated <br />to the EBRPD for conservation, and no improvements to the EBRPD trailhead and parking area <br />on the eastern portion of the project site would occur. Therefore, the project’s objective to